(as delivered)
Statement by H.E. Mr. Motohide Yoshikawa
Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations
At the Open Debate of the United Nations Security Council
On “Post-conflict Peacebuilding: Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture”
23 February 2016
Buenos días, Señor Presidente,
I would like to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to Ambassador Macharia Kamau, Permanent Representative of Kenya and Ambassador Olof Skoog, Permanent Representative of Sweden, the current and former Chairs of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), as well as Ambassador Rosenthal for sharing their insightful views with us. Embajador Rosenthal, Es un gran gusto de verle de nuevo. I also recognize in the Chamber the Permanent Representative of Brazil, ex- Chair of the PBC.
I thank the Permanent Representatives of Angola and Australia in moving the Review process forward.
Thanks to the initiative of the Venezuelan Presidency, we are meeting in an open format where both Security Council and non-Council members express their views. I find it most fitting given the nature of today’s topic. The long list of speakers and the large attendance in the Chamber also demonstrate the high interest.
Having chaired the Working Group on Lessons Learned of the PBC for the past two years and having now served in the Security Council for two months, I would like to make a few points on coordination between the Security Council and the PBC.
Mr. President
The PBC was created jointly by the Security Council and the General Assembly under the recognition that the three pillars of the UN, namely, peace and security, development as well as human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. The PBC was established to complement the peacebuilding efforts of UN institutions. Ten years have now passed since the PBC’s establishment. Now is the time for us to make the PBC an organ which can better perform its intended function as an advisory body to the Security Council.
In peacebuilding, the roles of the Security Council and the PBC are differentiated but complementary. The Security Council discharges its responsibility mainly in conflict resolution. The strength of the PBC, on the other hand, lies in its long-term endeavors of laying the groundwork for peace.
During my chairmanship of the Working Group on Lessons Learned during the last two years, this is exactly what we intended to do by highlighting the PBC’s strengths. The Group discussed challenges faced by post-conflict countries during and after UN mission draw-down, as well as the importance of institution-building, as key priorities in conflict-affected countries. The Group was firmly convinced that strengthening core state institutions that provide security, justice, public administration, as well as basic social services is fundamental to a successful transition from post-conflict situations to lasting peace.
Such lessons learned and the remaining challenges are summarized in the two final reports of the Working Group on Lessons Learned. The reports are an embodiment of the PBC’s mandated advisory role, and I hope they will be fully utilized in future discussions of the Security Council and the PBC, in the ongoing Review and beyond.
Mr. President,
The PBC can be better employed for the prevention of lapses and relapses into conflicts as well. The PBC Chair and Chairs of country-specific configurations of the PBC can provide timely information and early warning to the Security Council.
In this context, let me remind that inviting the PBC Chairs to the Security Council meetings is something that has already been agreed in the past Presidential Notes in 2010 and 2013. Therefore, the PBC Chairs should be invited to participate in Security Council debates in accordance with these Notes. I will promise to do so during Japan’s Presidency.
Mr. President,
If a conflict occurs, more costs and energy will be required. Securing sustained attention and resources for peacebuilding and conflict prevention is very important. There is no denying that the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) has proven itself to be an important financial tool to support critical peacebuilding processes in many post-conflict countries. Japan appreciates the Fund’s active performance.
Recognizing both the usefulness, as well as the current difficulties faced by the Fund, Japan will contribute an additional 3.5 million US dollars to the PBF by the end of March. This will make our total contribution to the PBF 46 million US dollars. I wish to join the Chair of the PBC, Ambassador Kamau, in encouraging Member States including non-traditional donors to consider making voluntary contributions to the Peacebuilding Fund.
That said, Japan does not believe in the “assessed contribution” option. We are concerned that the PBF’s comparative advantage to respond rapidly and flexibly would be greatly undermined, if we were to choose the “assessed contribution” option.
Mr. President,
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to share with you what we wish to do during our Council Presidency in the month of July. Foreign Minister Kishida announced earlier today that Japan wishes to hold an open debate on the theme of “Peacebuilding in Africa” in the month of July and the Minister looks forward to presiding over the meeting himself. This demonstrates Japan’s dedication and determination to making further contributions for greater coherence of UN peacebuilding efforts both at the policy level and on the ground.
Le agradezco, Señor Presidente.
